CQResearcher - Wikispacesnvhealthenglish.wikispaces.com/file/view/cloning.debate... · 2011-10-07 · 890 Hello Dolly! In 1996, scientists in Scot-land used adult stem cells to clone

Cloning DebateShould all forms of human cloning be banned?

Cloning became a hot issue in this year’s presiden-

tial race after scientists in South Korea announced

that they had created human embryos by cloning,

and former first lady Nancy Reagan urged Presi-

dent Bush to reconsider his policies on so-called therapeutic

cloning and embryonic stem-cell research. Some scientists think

embryonic stem-cell research could someday produce cures for

Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and other maladies that afflict millions

of people, including Alzheimer’s disease, which killed President

Ronald Reagan. Others say the procedure offers more hype than

hope. Still others, including President Bush, say the research is

grossly unethical because it destroys human embryos. They also

fear that therapeutic cloning could lead to human cloning and

even the creation of human clones as organ sources. Presidential

candidate Sen. John Kerry opposes human cloning but has vowed

to quadruple federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ......................879

CHRONOLOGY ..................887

BACKGROUND ..................888

CURRENT SITUATION ..........891

AT ISSUE ..........................893

OUTLOOK ........................894

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................897

THE NEXT STEP ................898

THISREPORT

The mother of a child with juvenile diabetesdemonstrates at the Capitol in support of

stem-cell research.

CQResearcherPublished by CQ Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc.

thecqresearcher.com

The CQ Researcher • Oct. 22, 2004 • www.thecqresearcher.comVolume 14, Number 37 • Pages 877-900

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR

EXCELLENCE ◆ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD

878 The CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

879 • Is reproductive cloningunsafe?• Will therapeutic cloningand embryonic stem-celltherapies revolutionizemedicine?• Is therapeutic cloningimmoral?

BACKGROUND

888 Scientific MilestonesGerman embryologist HansSpemann articulated the prin-ciples of cloning in 1938.

890 Fear and LoathingThe belief that the humanrace could be improvedby breeding emerged inancient Greece.

890 Hello Dolly!In 1996, scientists in Scot-land used adult stem cellsto clone a mammal — asheep named Dolly.

CURRENT SITUATION

891 Competing LegislationSome bills would ban allcloning; others permittherapeutic cloning.

891 Global Ban?President Bush seeks aglobal ban on all forms ofhuman cloning.

892 Stem-Cell ShowdownLawmakers and scientistswant Bush to fund newembryonic stem-cell lines.

894 Action in the StatesState laws on cloning vary.

OUTLOOK

894 Human Cloning?The November presidentialelection likely will affect thefuture of cloning research.

SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS

880 How Reproductive andTherapeutic Cloning DifferUp to a point, the proceduresare the same.

881 Stem-cell TherapiesScientists say millions of peoplecould be helped.

883 Human Cloning OpposedMost say it is morally wrong.

884 Do Human Clones WalkAmong Us?Some scientists say a dozenhuman clones already exist.

887 ChronologyKey events since 1938.

888 Animal Cloning SpursControversy, TooScientists have cloned livestock,pets and endangered species.

893 At IssueShould Congress ban allforms of human cloning?

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

896 For More InformationOrganizations to contact.

897 BibliographySelected sources used.

898 The Next StepAdditional articles.

899 Citing The CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

CLONING DEBATE

Cover: The mother of a child with juvenile diabetes demonstrates at the Capitol in supportof embryonic stem-cell research. (Getty Images/Shawn Thew)

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. Colin

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy Koch

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFF WRITERS: Mary H. Cooper, William Triplett

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Sarah Glazer, David Hatch, David Hosansky,

Patrick Marshall, Tom Price, Jane Tanner

DESIGN/PRODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Kate Templin

A Division ofCongressional Quarterly Inc.

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER:John A. Jenkins

DIRECTOR, LIBRARY PUBLISHING: Kathryn C. Suárez

DIRECTOR, EDITORIAL OPERATIONS:Ann Davies

CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.

CHAIRMAN: Paul C. Tash

VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew P. Corty

PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHER: Robert W. Merry

Copyright © 2004 CQ Press, a division of Congres-

sional Quarterly Inc. (CQ). CQ reserves all copyright

and other rights herein, unless previously specified

in writing. No part of this publication may be re-

produced electronically or otherwise, without prior

written permission. Unauthorized reproduction or

transmission of CQ copyrighted material is a violation

of federal law carrying civil fines of up to $100,000.

The CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on

acid-free paper. Published weekly, except Jan. 2, April

9, July 2, July 9, Aug. 6, Aug. 13, Nov. 26 and Dec.

31, by CQ Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly

Inc. Annual subscription rates for institutions start at

$625. For pricing, call 1-800-834-9020, ext. 1906. To

purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or elec-

tronic format (PDF), visit www.cqpress.com or call

866-427-7737. A single report is $10. Bulk purchase

discounts and electronic-rights licensing are also avail-

able. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C., and

additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address

changes to The CQ Researcher, 1255 22nd St., N.W.,

Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Oct. 22, 2004Volume 14, Number 37

T

HECQResearcher

Oct. 22, 2004 879Available online: www.thecqresearcher.com

Cloning Debate

THE ISSUESB rigitte Boissel ier

holds two Ph.D.s inchemistry and has

worked in both industry andacademia.

Yet it’s easy to dismissBoisselier as, well . . . a crack-pot. After all, she belongs tothe fringe Raelian religioussect, which believes that hu-mans are descendants ofclones created 25,000 yearsago by space aliens.

Boisselier made headlinestwo years ago when she an-nounced that the Raelians hadfacilitated the birth of the world’sfirst human clone. Most peo-ple scoffed, but Boisselier notonly stands by her story butalso claims that Clonaid — theRaelians’ biotechnology company — hasproduced 13 other human clones.

“We are doing around 10 implan-tations a month,” says Boisselier, a na-tive of France and a part-time residentof Las Vegas. “And we’re getting thou-sands and thousands of requests frompeople who are interested in cloning.”

Cloning is a form of asexual repro-duction in which an embryo is creat-ed, not by the “natural” method of asperm (male) cell fertilizing an egg (fe-male) cell, but by using technology toreplicate the genetic makeup of a sin-gle individual. (See diagram, p. 880.)

Boisselier contends that cloning isthe first step to immortality, a tenet ofthe Raelian religion. But she also viewsit as a legitimate way of helping in-fertile couples and homosexuals beargenetically related children. Two otherscientists — Panayiotis Zavos, a fertil-ity clinic operator in Lexington, Ky.,and Severino Antinori, an Italian gy-necologist — are publicly offeringcloning services to help infertile cou-ples and homosexuals.

Antinori claimed in May that at leastthree human clones have been bornwith his assistance. “I confirm the facts,”he told a Rome news conference. “Ithappened, and I am repeating it.” 1

Many experts also scoff at Antinori’sclaims, which have not been inde-pendently verified. Nonetheless, theidea of cloning humans deeply trou-bles many experts and ethicists.

They argue that so-called repro-ductive cloning would undermine thefundamental concept of humanness.Moreover, they note, only about 5 per-cent of all mammalian cloning at-tempts result in live births, which oftenexhibit severe genetic abnormalities.

“It would be grossly unethical totry and make a human baby by cloning,given what we know about failurerates in other mammals,” says ThomasMurray, president of the HastingsCenter, a bioethics research center inGarrison, N.Y.

While scientists and policymakersoverwhelmingly oppose reproductivecloning, many support “therapeutic”

cloning — creating humanembryos through cloning, notto produce babies, but to har-vest their stem cells for med-ical research. Embryonic stemcells are undifferentiated “mas-ter” cells capable of develop-ing into any type of tissue inthe body. Many scientists thinkthey could someday be usedto repair or “regenerate” ma-ture organs and tissues dam-aged by Parkinson’s disease,diabetes and other afflictions.

In a stunning cloning break-through, South Korean scien-tists announced in February2004 that they had createdhuman embryos by cloningand had successfully harvest-ed stem cells from them.

“Our goal is not to clonehumans, but to understandthe causes of diseases,” said

project director Hwang Woo-suk, ofSeoul National University.

Meanwhile, Harvard University’s ethi-cal review board revealed early this monthit is considering proposals from two teamsof university scientists to conduct similarexperiments. “This is cutting-edge re-search,” says Professor Douglas Melton,the senior researcher on one of the teams.We want new ways to study and hope-fully cure diseases.”

But the scientists pursuing thera-peutic cloning are quick to point outthat they oppose reproductive cloning.“We’d like to ask every country or na-tion to have a law to prohibit repro-ductive cloning,” Korean obstetricianMoon Shin-yong said. 2

The United States has not bannedreproductive cloning, however, andneither have most other countries.

Most embryonic stem cells held in re-search facilities were harvested from “nat-ural” (uncloned) embryos that people do-nated to science, mostly unused embryosfrom fertility clinics. So far, scientists have

BY BRIAN HANSEN

AFP

Photo

Signs held by a protester in San Diego, Calif., and on apassing truck oppose all embryonic stem-cell research,which two-thirds of Americans support. President Bushhas imposed strict funding limits on stem-cell research;

Democratic presidential challenger Sen. John Kerrysupports more funding. Many scientists say Bush’s policyis causing private investors — as well as young scientists

just starting their careers — to avoid embryonic research.

Continued on p. 881


CLONING DEBATE

How Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning Differ

Source: Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; Olu Davis/CQ Press

Therapeutic cloning creates human embryos through cloning in order to harvest their stem cells for medical research; reproductive cloning creates the embryos for human reproduction. But the two procedures are initially identical. The first step in the process — known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT — is to remove the nucleus from a female egg cell, stripping out most of its genetic material (1). This produces a denucleated egg. Next, the nucleus is removed from a body (somatic) cell — a skin cell, for example, and inserted (2) into the denucleated egg. Then the egg is stimulated with a tiny jolt of electricity or a few drops of chemicals (3) to “trick” it into dividing, a process normally triggered by a sperm cell.

Embryos created in this manner are almost — though not quite — exact genetic replicas of the body (somatic) cell donors. About 2 percent of a donor’s genetic material is not passed along because it resides in a cell’s mitochondria, not its nucleus. Cloned embryos receive this 2 percent from the mitochondria of their denucleated egg cells.

Once an embryo starts to divide, the cloning process is technically complete (4).

In the case of reproductive cloning, the cloned embryo is implanted into a woman’s womb in the hope that she will give birth (5). In therapeutic cloning, the cloned embryo is allowed to develop in a laboratory petri dish long enough for embryonic stem cells to be harvested, which destroys the embryo (6).

Laboratory petri dish After 4-5 days, the developing embryo reaches the blastocyst stage (100-200 cells). Embryonic stem cells then are

harvested, destroying the embryo.

6

5

A jolt of electricity (or chemicals) "tricks" the egg into thinking

it has been fertilized.

3

DNA from a somatic (body) cell, i.e., a skin

cell, is inserted into the denucleated egg.

2

CloningDNA is removed

from an egg.1

Cloned embryo4

Therapeutic Cloning

Reproductive Cloning

DNA

Cloned embryo is implanted into a woman's womb. Clone is born.


tested these cells only on animals, noembryonic stem-cell therapies have beenused on humans in the United States.

But many scientists predict embry-onic stem cells someday will be usedto treat human diseases, thanks espe-cially to Hwang and Moon. “The SouthKorean work is staggeringly impor-tant,” says Gerald Schatten, a cloningexpert at the University of PittsburghSchool of Medicine. “It ushers in anew era of medical promise.”

“It’s a major medical milestone,”agrees Robert Lanza, vice president ofmedical and scientific development atAdvanced Cell Technology, in Worces-ter, Mass. “It offers hope to millionsof patients suffering from a long listof diseases.” 3

Experts say creating embryonic stemcells through cloning rather than thenormal method of combining egg andsperm cells could provide a huge med-ical advantage: People being treated forParkinson’s disease, for instance, couldbe injected with cells bearing their exactgenetic makeup, eliminating the risk ofimmunological rejection.

The late Christopher Reeve, whowas tragically paralyzed in a 1995equestrian accident, was an outspo-ken supporter of therapeutic cloningand embryonic stem-cell research.Reeve, who was best known for star-ring in the “Superman” films of the1970s and ’80s, died of heart failurethis fall. Testifying before Congress twoyears ago, Reeve said the two tech-nologies could help “100 millionAmericans [who] suffer from seriousor currently incurable diseases.” 4

But some scientists say the promis-es of embryonic stem-cell research —and, by extension, therapeutic cloning— are being oversold. “They have yetto treat one human patient, and theirsuccess in animal models has beenvery limited,” says David Prentice, asenior fellow in life sciences at theFamily Research Council, a pro-life or-ganization in Washington, D.C.

Moreover, critics like Prentice sayembryonic stem-cell research andtherapeutic cloning are unethical andshould be banned because they de-stroy human embryos destined to be-come human beings. Some critics —especially Catholics, Christians and con-servative Republicans — equate thepractice with murder.

But to be sure, there are exceptionsto this rule. Nancy Reagan, for exam-ple, the widow of former PresidentRonald Reagan, a Republican Party icon,supports both therapeutic cloning andembryonic stem-cell research. The Rea-gans’ son, Ron, even spoke at the De-mocratic National Convention in Bostonthis summer in support of the tech-nologies. On the other hand, Sen. MaryLandrieu, D-La., who is “pro-choice”on the issue of abortion, favors ban-ning expanded therapeutic (as well asreproductive) cloning. Landrieu sup-ports federally funded embryonic stem-cell research, but only if it is conductedwith embryos that had already beendestroyed before Aug. 9, 2001. 5

President Bush has a similar poli-cy. Bush imposed strict limits on fed-eral funding for embryonic stem-cellresearch in August 2001, saying it raised“profound ethical questions” becauseit “destroys” an embryo’s “potential forlife.” Bush limited federal spending onsuch research to the approximately 60cell lines that he claimed were thenavailable, arguing that “the life anddeath decision has already beenmade” for the embryos from whichthey were harvested. 6

To date, there are no federal re-strictions on privately funded em-bryo research, but many scientistssay Bush’s policy is causing privateinvestors — as well as young sci-entists just starting their careers —to avoid embryonic research.

“People are not committing to it be-cause they don’t want to waste moneyor years of effort,” says Elizabeth Black-burn, a biology professor at the Uni-versity of California, San Francisco.

While U.S. policymakers widelyview reproductive cloning as unethical,

Continued from p. 879

Stem-Cell Therapies Could Aid Millions

Many scientists say more than 100 million Americans could potentially be aided by therapies developed through stem-cell research. Critics deride the figure as vastly inflated.

Source: National Academies of Science, Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research, 2002

Condition Number of patients

Cardiovascular disease 58 million

Autoimmune diseases 30 million

Diabetes 16 million

Osteoporosis 10 million

Cancers 8.2 million

Alzheimer’s disease 5.5 million

Parkinson’s disease 5.5 million

Burns (severe) 0.3 million

Spinal-cord injuries 0.25 million

Birth defects (per year) 0.15 million


CLONING DEBATE

Congress has not moved to ban thepractice, because some lawmakers areholding out for a ban on reproductivebut not therapeutic cloning; others wantto criminalize both types.

Meanwhile, some experts worry thatthe Koreans’ widely publicized find-ings could serve as a roadmap forrogue doctors or mad scientists benton cloning humans.

“I’m afraid some nitwit is going totry,” said Larry Goldstein, a cellularand molecular biologist at the Uni-versity of California, San Diego. 7

“It is going to happen,” said LeeM. Silver, a professor of molecular bi-ology at Princeton University. “I’m notsaying it’s good, but I think it’s goingto happen.” 8

As scientists and policymakersgrapple with the South Korean cloningachievement, here are some of thequestions being asked:

Is reproductive cloning unsafe?Many experts say reproductive

cloning is grossly unethical because itjeopardizes the health of would-be

child clones. They note that efforts toclone sheep, pigs, goats and other an-imals yield few live births, and thatmany live-born mammal clones diewithin weeks or months because oforgan abnormalities.

“There is no such thing as a nor-mal, healthy clone,” says renownedanimal-cloning expert Rudolf Jaenisch,of the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology (MIT). “It would be totally ir-responsible to attempt human cloningat this point, given what we knowabout animal cloning.”

Reproductive cloning also would like-ly endanger the birth mothers, critics say.With animals, pregnancies involvingcloned fetuses regularly result in life-threatening complications for the moth-er. In one prominent study, nearly athird of the pregnant cows died fromcomplications late in pregnancy. 9

Meanwhile, 88 percent of Ameri-cans polled in May 2004 said cloninghumans would be “morally wrong” fora variety of reasons, even if it couldbe done safely. (See graph, p. 883.)Other polls show similar results. 10

Reproductive cloning is fundamen-tally wrong, critics say, because itwould undermine the basic concept ofhuman identity. As a result, they say,clones would be seen by society —and themselves — not as unique in-dividuals, but as carbon copies of their“original” genetic twins.

Cloning also would allow adults to“customize” their children’s genes inthe hope that they would look or acta certain way, critics say. That wouldlead, they argue, to the diminution ofindividual uniqueness: Children wouldbecome mere consumer goods. 11

“Human cloning turns procreationinto a manufacturing process, treatinghuman life as a commodity made to pre-set specifications,” said Cardinal WilliamKeeler, chairman of the Committee forPro-Life Activities of the United StatesConference of Catholic Bishops. “This isa sign of moral regress.” 12

Leon Kass, chairman of the Presi-dent’s Council on Bioethics, agrees. “Itis the first step toward a . . . worldin which children become objects ofmanipulation and products of will,”Kass told a Senate panel last year. 13

Advocates of reproductive cloningacknowledge the procedure could beabused, but they insist that with gov-ernment oversight it can be carriedout safely and morally.

“Human cloning will be done whetherwe like it or not,” said Zavos, who runsthe fertility clinic in Kentucky, as wellas other clinics overseas. “We shouldaccept it, make it legal, regulate it andmake sure it is done in a responsible,scientifically correct way.” 14

As for the notion that clones wouldsuffer from identity crises, Boisselier,of the Raelians, says they would be“loved and cherished even more” be-cause their parents cannot have chil-dren any other way. “We are talkingabout babies, not monsters,” she says.“They have their own identities andare seen as individuals.”

Mark Eibert, a San Mateo, Calif.,attorney who advocates for infertile

Support Rose for Stem-Cell Research

The number of Americans who approve of embryonic stem-cell research has increased four percentage points from three years ago, while the number who disapprove has fallen by almost half.

Source: Harris Poll, conducted online among 2,242 Americans age 18 and over, July 18-24, 2004

Do you agree or disagree:

If most scientists believe that stem-cell research will greatly increase our ability to prevent or treat serious diseases, we should trust them and let them do it:

Tend to Tend to Not sure/Agree Disagree refused

2001 63% 29% 7%

2004 67 16 18


couples, argues that there are no suchidentity problems with identical twins,which he calls “naturally occurringclones.”

“They don’t seem to have any iden-tity crisis,” says Eibert, the father of 4-year-old twin boys. “There is no evi-dence — as opposed to speculation —to suggest that cloned children wouldfeel bad about the way they were con-ceived, or that they would wish theyhad never been born. They are notgoing to be freaks leading secondhandlives; they are going to be ordinary peo-ple and unique individuals with as muchof an open future as anybody has.”

Eibert also rejects the “designer chil-dren” argument: that people would usereproductive cloning to create kids wholook like movie stars or have great mu-sical talent or athletic ability. Ninety-nine percent of the demand for cloningis going to come from infertile people,”Eibert says, “and they’re just interestedin having normal, healthy children whoare biologically related to them.”

Eibert says cloning is needed becauseinfertility treatments, such as in vitro fer-tilization (IVF), can’t help people whocannot produce viable eggs or sperm.“IVF doesn’t work for everyone,” he says,calling cloning “revolutionary” because itis the only infertility treatment that doesnot require the patients to produce vi-able eggs or viable sperm. If they canspare a few cells scraped from the in-side of their cheek, they too can havebiologically related children and families,just like healthy people do.”

Zavos maintains that reproductivecloning is not only morally justifiable butalso medically safe. Testifying before Con-gress in 2002, Zavos said the “poor suc-cess rates noted by the animal cloners”were because of “experiments that werepoorly designed, poorly executed, poor-ly approached and poorly understoodand interpreted.” In fact, Zavos says, “itmay be technically easier and safer” toclone humans than animals. 15

Zavos, Boisselier and Antinori saythey have developed sophisticated test-

ing procedures to “prescreen” clonedembryos for genetic defects before theyare implanted in women. But nonehas disclosed details of the proce-dures, which sparks further suspicionand outrage among many of the world’stop scientists.

“Zavos and the others are reallyrenegades to science,” says MIT’sJaenisch. “They’re totally ignoring allthe scientific evidence, and that’s com-pletely unethical. There is no way touse cloning to create a normal baby.”

Will therapeutic cloning and em-bryonic stem-cell therapies revo-lutionize medicine?

Therapeutic cloning produces em-bryonic stem cells that are used to re-search potential treatments for condi-

tions ranging from Parkinson’s andAlzheimer’s diseases to diabetes, spinal-cord injuries and cancer. Eventually,scientists hope, the cells can be usedto treat the actual diseases, using stem-cell therapy.

So far, embryonic stem-cell thera-pies have only been tested on miceand other animals. Most of the cellsused in stem-cell research have beenharvested from “natural” embryos dis-carded by clients of fertility clinics.The South Korean work announcedin February marked the only time thatresearchers have extracted stem cellsfrom cloned embryos.

Nevertheless, many experts believethat therapeutic cloning and embryon-ic stem-cell research could revolution-ize medical science. The Coalition forthe Advancement of Medical Research(CAMR), representing scientific societiesand patient organizations, estimates stem-cell research could save the lives or easethe suffering of 100 million Americansand untold millions worldwide.

“This is an incredibly promising area,”says Sean Tipton, CAMR’s vice president.“It looks very promising for a wholehost of human conditions where a newway to generate tissue is needed.”

Researchers hope doctors eventu-ally will be able to repair or “regen-erate” damaged tissue by injecting ortransplanting embryonic stem cellsinto patients. Because the cells are sobiologically flexible, scientists believethey can be “coaxed” into becomingwhatever type of tissue patients need,such as healthy brain cells for Parkin-son’s patients and insulin-producingpancreatic cells for diabetics.

Supporters of so-called regenerativemedicine cite animal studies and labo-ratory experiments with human embry-onic stem cells as evidence the approachwill work. Researchers have coaxedmouse embryonic stem cells into be-coming a wide variety of tissues, in-cluding blood, brain, bone and musclecells. In an experiment at the NationalInstitutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda,

Most Americans Oppose Human Cloning

Nearly 90 percent of Americans polled in 2004 said cloning humans is morally wrong. The percentage has stayed about the same since 2001.

Source: Gallup Poll, of 1,000 Americans age 18 and over, May 2-4, 2004

Do you personally believe that cloning humans is morally acceptable or

morally wrong?

Morallywrong

Morally acceptable

88%

9%


Md., mice given diabetes regained someinsulin-producing ability after receivinginjections of mouse embryonic stemcells. In another, mouse stem cells be-came brain cells that produce dopamine,a chemical lacking in Parkinson’s suf-ferers. When the dopamine-producingcells were then transplanted into labo-ratory rats inflicted with Parkinson’s, therats were partially cured.

“We’re absolutely confident that wehave the right type of cell, and wecan clearly show it affects the behav-ior of the animal,” said project direc-tor Ron McKay, an NIH biologist. Whilethe research is far from proof of acure, McKay added, “It’s absolutely de-finitive evidence that these cells canwork in the brain.” 16

Scientists also have successfully in-duced human embryonic stem cells intobecoming brain, liver and other typesof cells (in laboratory petri dishes). Al-though no therapies have been devel-oped using them, many experts believethat if that day ever arrives, patientscould be treated with cells of their owngenetic makeup, by having themselves,in effect, “therapeutically cloned.” In the-ory, this would eliminate the risk thata person’s immune system would re-ject the injected cells as foreign bod-ies; thus patients wouldn’t have to takeexpensive immune-suppressing drugsthat sometimes cause painful side ef-fects, or don’t work at all.

“That’s the hypothesis, but we stillneed to prove it,” said Jose Cibelli, a

Michigan State University biotechnol-ogy professor who collaborated on theSouth Korean experiment. “If we cancircumvent the rejection issue, life willbe happy thereafter.” 17

Ron Reagan Jr., the son of the lateformer president, Ronald Reagan, tout-ed that argument in a speech at theDemocratic National Convention inBoston last summer.

“How’d you like to have your own,personal biological repair kit standingby at the hospital?” asked Reagan.“Sound like magic? Welcome to thefuture of medicine.”

But critics say the potential for ther-apeutic cloning and embryonic stem-cell therapy is being oversold. This sum-mer, for example, more than 2,400

CLONING DEBATE

S o far, no one has presented any hard scientific evidence,such as a DNA test, to prove that a human clone hasbeen born. But some claim that — like something out

of a science fiction movie — clones already walk among us.Brigitte Boisselier, a member of the Raelian religious sect

(who believe humans are descendants of clones created 25,000years ago by space aliens) and Italian gynecologist SeverinoAntinori both say they have facilitated the births of more thana dozen human clones. And Kentucky-based fertility specialistPanayiotis Zavos says he has implanted a cloned embryo in awoman, but that she failed to become pregnant. He plans toimplant other women soon, he says.

Boisselier, Zavos and Antinori say they have good reasonsfor not providing proof of their purported cloning accom-plishments: Doing so would violate their clients’ privacy andcould even subject them to violence by anti-cloning zealots.

The three say they also fear arrest. Reproductive cloning isillegal in France and Italy, Boisselier’s and Antinori’s nativecountries, respectively. Even if Boisselier offered proof whilein a country where reproductive cloning is still legal (such asthe United States), Boisselier could be extradited back to hernative France to stand trial.

“Why should I give the world the proof that will put me injail?” asks Boisselier, who says she’s currently negotiating withseveral foreign governments to allow her to take up residencewithout fear of extradition. “I will not give the proof unless thereis a place I can stay, and I am very confident that no extradi-tion can happen.” If those conditions were met, she continues,“Then, of course, I will give every detail.”

Here are the three scientists’ claims:

• Boisselier runs Clonaid, the Raelians’ human cloning pro-ject. On Dec. 27, 2002, She announced that Clonaid hadfacilitated the birth of the world’s first human clone. Shesaid the baby, nicknamed Eve, was born the previousday to a 31-year-old American woman at an undisclosedoverseas location. Boisselier promised to provide proofof the claim but never did, claiming that Eve’s parentsrefused to allow any genetic testing. Boisselier says Eveis currently living in Israel, and that Clonaid has sincefacilitated the births of more than a dozen other clones.

• Antinori became known in the 1990s for his controver-sial work in helping post-menopausal women have chil-dren. In 2001, he announced his intention to facilitatethe birth of a human clone. In 2002 and 2003 he madeseveral inconsistent claims that clonal pregnancies wereunder way. In May 2004, he said at least three babieshad been born, but that he had played only an “advi-sory” role in their births. Although Antinori’s medical andresearch credentials make his claims at least somewhatplausible, there is no evidence to support his an-nouncements.

• Zavos runs fertility clinics in Lexington, Ky., London andLimassol, Cyprus. In May 2002, Zavos said he had assem-bled a team of scientists and had approved 12 couples forparticipation in cloning experiments. In April 2003, he pub-lished a picture said to be of a four-day-old cloned embryo,but the peer-reviewed analysis he promised did not follow.In January 2004, he announced that he had implanted acloned embryo in one of his clients, but two weeks latersaid the woman had failed to become pregnant.

Are There Clones Among Us?


doctors, scientists and other profes-sionals affiliated with the ChristianMedical & Dental Association (CMDA)wrote to Congress arguing that em-bryonic stem-cell research has yielded“only very limited and/or questionablesuccess in animal models” and “notherapeutic application whatsoever inhuman beings.” The letter accused someresearchers of “hyping” the science “farbeyond scientific integrity” in order tosecure federal research funding. 18

To be sure, groupslike the CMDA havestrong moral objec-tions to embryonicstem-cell research.But they also say theapproach has seriousscientific shortcom-ings that should betroubling to everyone— including thosewho do not sharetheir religious ormoral views. For ex-ample, the prospectof treating diabeteswith embryonic stemcells is far less promis-ing than supportersclaim, according tothe critics. They arguethat the much-touted2001 experiment inwhich researchersclaimed to have produced insulin-gen-erating pancreatic islet cells was, in fact,a failure because all of the lab rats thatreceived the supposedly therapeutic cellsdied of diabetes.

Moreover, they point out that in 2003another team of researchers concludedthat the first team had not created in-sulin-producing pancreatic cells but thatthe cells had only absorbed insulin fromthe culture medium and released it again.Critics also note that researchers at theUniversity of Calgary, in Canada, foundthat while pancreatic cells derived fromembryonic stem cells produced someinsulin, they did not do so in response

to changing glucose levels, as needed.Furthermore, when the Calgary re-searchers transplanted the cells into mice,they formed tumors. 19

Critics are even more skeptical thatembryonic stem-cell research will pro-duce a cure for Alzheimer’s disease,a brain disorder that affects as manyas 5 million Americans. Because thedisease kills huge numbers of manydifferent varieties of cells, the therapyprobably will not work on it, they say.

“The complex architecture of thebrain, the fact that it’s a diffuse diseasewith neuronal loss in numerous placesand with synaptic loss, all this is a prob-lem” for any approach involving cellreplacement, said Huntington Potter, abrain researcher at the University ofSouth Florida in Tampa and chief ex-ecutive of the Johnnie B. Byrd Institutefor Alzheimer’s Research. 20

Critics are also skeptical of the claimthat therapeutic cloning will yield cellsthat will not be rejected by recipients’immune systems. Unless the eggs usedin the procedure are donated by thetransplant recipients themselves, the re-

sulting embryos will contain divergentDNA that could trigger an immune-system rejection, they point out.

Even MIT’s Jaenisch concedes thattissue rejection could be a problem. In2002, he created cloned mouse embryosand transplanted their stem cells backinto the same animals. Although thecells were genetically identical to the re-cipients’ other cells, they were rejected.

“Our results raise the provocative pos-sibility that even genetically matched

cells derived by therapeuticcloning may still face bar-riers to effective trans-plantation for some dis-orders,” Jaenisch wrote. 21

Critics have seized onJaenisch’s pronounce-ment as evidence that therejection problem willforever hamper thera-peutic cloning. ButJaenisch — and manyother scientists — say itis simply too early forsuch sweeping conclu-sions. “The science is in-efficient at this point, andmuch has to be learned,”he says. “Technically,there are some issues thatneed to be resolved, andthey can be resolved.”

Meanwhile, many op-ponents of cloning and

embryo research support regenerativemedicine using adult, rather than em-bryonic, stem cells. So-called adult stemcells have been found in many kindsof mature tissues, including bone mar-row, some organs and blood. Adultstem-cell therapies have already beenused on people, with some success. Andthe approach is not controversial likeembryonic stem-cell research and ther-apeutic cloning, because no embryos aredestroyed in the process. 22

Scientists generally agree that adultstem cells have medical promise. Butmost believe that embryonic cells havemuch greater potential.

Controversial human-cloning researchers, from left, Severino Antinori,Panayiotis Zavos and Brigitte Boisselier attend a conference

at the National Academy of Sciences.

AFP

photo

/Tim

Slo

an


“We are all for research into adultstem cells,” says Tipton, of CAMR, “butthe overwhelming scientific opinion isthey are not going to be nearly as good.”

Is therapeutic cloning immoral?Some people argue that therapeu-

tic cloning is immoral because it cre-ates and then destroys human em-bryos, which they say are destined tobecome human beings.

“All human cloning produces anoth-er human life,” said Sen. Sam Brown-back, R-Kan., who advocates criminaliz-ing all forms of the practice. “The deliberatecreation and destruction of young hu-mans through the process of [therapeu-tic] human cloning is morally wrong.” 23

John Kilner, president of the Centerfor Bioethics and Human Dignity, a Chris-tian-oriented think tank in Bannock-burn, Ill., agrees. “So-called therapeuticcloning destroys embryonic human be-ings,” says Kilner, a Harvard-trained re-ligious ethicist. “It produces human em-bryos for the explicit purpose of fatallymining them to obtain bodily materialsfor experimental purposes.”

Some critics also argue that thera-peutic cloning would not necessarilystop at the embryonic level. Clonescould be kept alive in laboratories formonths or even years until their or-gans could be harvested for “thera-peutic” purposes, they speculate.

Princeton’s Silver, who believes thattherapeutic and reproductive cloningwould be moral if they could be per-formed safely, touched off a firestorm afew years ago when he said, “it wouldalmost certainly be possible to producehuman bodies without a forebrain.” Leeadded that “these human bodies withoutany semblance of consciousness wouldnot be considered persons, and thus itwould be perfectly legal to keep them‘alive’ as a future source of organs.” 24

Critics say Silver’s “organ farm” sce-nario is not so far-fetched: Imagine agrief-stricken couple whose child des-perately needs a heart transplant. Facedwith such a scenario, critics say, the cou-

ple might agree to have doctors clonetheir sick child and genetically modifythe embryo so that it would developwithout a forebrain. The couple couldthen pay a surrogate mother to carrythe embryo to term, or at least to apoint where the fetus’ heart is fully de-veloped. Doctors could then remove theheart from the cloned, brainless fetus —which would have died anyway — andtransplant it into the couple’s sick child.

Charles Krauthammer, excoriates thisscenario as morally reprehensible. “Thereis no grosser corruption of biotechnol-ogy than creating a human mutant anddisemboweling it at our pleasure forspare parts,” wrote Krauthammer, a con-servative columnist and a medical doc-tor, in Time. “If we flinch in the faceof this high-tech barbarity, we’ll deserveto live in the hell it heralds.” 25

Other critics argue that even if re-productive cloning were criminalizedand therapeutic cloning did not resultin organ-farm practices, it would facil-itate the cloning of people. The “slip-pery slope” argument they make goesthis way: If the federal government orthe states embraced therapeutic cloning,they would have to fund — or at leastpermit — research in order for thepractice to be performed safely and ef-ficiently. Because therapeutic and re-productive cloning are procedurallyidentical at the laboratory stage, theperfected technique for therapeuticcloning would inevitably be used forreproductive purposes, they argue.

Simply banning reproductive cloningcould not prevent this from occurring,critics say, because rogue doctors couldfly their patients to countries wherethe practice is legal. “Today, cloned[embryos] for research, tomorrowcloned [embryos] for babymaking,”White House bioethics adviser Kasssaid in response to South Korea’s ther-apeutic-cloning triumph. “In my opin-ion . . . the only way to prevent thisfrom happening here is for Congressto enact a comprehensive ban ormoratorium on all human cloning.” 26

Others argue that therapeutic cloningwould endanger and exploit womenwho donate eggs for the procedure,because of the dangers inherent in thehormone treatments and surgery en-dured by egg donors. And if donorsare offered financial compensation todonate their eggs, critics say, it wouldresult in poor women selling their bodyparts for financial recompense.

“[Therapeutic cloning would] usherin an era where women will be ex-ploited by experimental research cloningby corporations in order to get theireggs. Millions of women’s eggs will bepurchased for use in cloning experi-ments,” said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla.,a physician. “Eventually, these compa-nies will . . . exploit poor women inThird World countries to get their eggs.”

But proponents of therapeutic cloningsay it would be morally wrong not toallow the procedure (as well as embry-onic stem-cell research), given the un-told suffering that could be ameliorated.

“It is a weighing of morals,” saysBlackburn, of the University of Cali-fornia. “[Nobody] is hurt by therapeu-tic cloning or embryonic stem-cell re-search, but . . . a great many peoplecould be harmed by banning them.”

She and others reject the argumentthat therapeutic cloning and embryonicstem-cell research destroy actual ornascent human beingsbecause many “nat-urally” fertilized eggs never develop intofull-fledged fetuses. The American Soci-ety for Reproductive Medicine estimatesthat 40 to 50 percent of all fertilized eggsexpire on their own accord.

“It is true that every human life be-gins with an embryo, but it is not atall true that every embryo begins ahuman life,” says Arthur Caplan, di-rector of the Center for Bioethics atthe University of Pennsylvania inPhiladelphia. “Scientifically, it is not cor-rect to say that every embryo has thepotential to become a person, becausemany embryos are simply miswiredand do not develop into anything at

CLONING DEBATE

Continued on p. 888


Chronology1850s-1950sScientists make first attemptsat cloning.

1938German scientist Hans Spemannarticulates the principles of mod-ern cloning.

1952American embryologists RobertBriggs and Thomas J. King transfergenetic material from frog cells todenucleated frog eggs. Many of theeggs develop into juvenile frogs.

•

1960s-1980sScientists begin cloning mammals.

1962In the first successful cloning experi-ment using adult cells, Oxford Uni-versity zoologist John Gurdon trans-fers genetic material from tadpoleintestinal cells into denucleated frogeggs. The result: tadpole clones.

1970Theologian Paul Ramsey arguesagainst cloning humans in hisbook The Fabricated Man.

1984Danish embryologist Steen Willad-sen clones a sheep using embry-onic cells. Other researchers sub-sequently clone cattle, pigs andother farm animals.

•

1990s The first animalis born cloned from adult cells.Scientists also isolate humanembryonic stem cells, raisinghopes of revolutionary newmedical treatments.

January 1996English scientist Ian Wilmut andhis colleagues clone first mammalever created using adult stemcells. Six months later, on Feb. 22,1997, Wilmut announces birth of“Dolly” the sheep.

December 1997A furor ensues when Princeton biolo-gist Lee Silver says that cloning mightsomeday be used to create brainlesshuman clones as sources of organs.

November 1998Scientists at the University of Wiscon-sin and Johns Hopkins University an-nounce that they isolated human em-bryonic stem cells for the first time.

•

2000-PresentA few scientists announce theirintentions to clone humans. Otherexperts say cloning could beused for “therapeutic” purposes.Lawmakers clash over how toregulate cloning.

Nov. 26, 2001Advanced Cell Technology ofWorcester, Mass., clones human em-bryos for stem-cell research, butnone develop past the six-cell stage.

Jan. 26, 2001American fertility expert PanayiotisZavos announces his intentions toclone human beings. Italian gyne-cologist Severino Antinori andRaelian religious cult memberBrigitte Boisselier soon follow suit.

July 31, 2001The House of Representativespasses legislation banning allforms of human cloning, but themeasure stalls in the Senate be-cause some members want toallow therapeutic cloning.

Aug. 9, 2001President Bush says scientists mayuse federal funds to study humanembryonic stem-cell lines createdbefore this date, but that the gov-ernment will not fund the “de-struction” of more embryos.

Dec. 26, 2002Boisselier claims that the world’sfirst human clone, a girl nicknamedEve, has been born.

Feb. 27, 2003The House once again votes toban all forms of human cloning,and the Senate once again refusesto do so.

Feb. 12, 2004South Korean scientists createhuman embryos by cloning andharvest stem cells from them touse in therapeutic research.

May 2004Antinori announces the birth ofthree human clones. He providesno proof, and most scientistsdoubt the claim.

June 5, 2004Former President Ronald Reagandies of Alzheimer’s disease. Hiswidow rebukes Bush’s policy bycalling for more federal supportfor embryonic stem-cell research.Democratic presidential candidateSen. John Kerry does the same.

October 2004Harvard University’s ethical reviewboard reveals it is considering pro-posals from two teams of universi-ty scientists to conduct embryonicstem-cell research. . . . Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger, R-Calif., breakswith the state Republican Partyand the Bush administration andsupports a $3 billion bond measurethat would fund embryonic stem-cell research.


all. And philosophically, it’s a terriblemistake to mix up potential peoplewith real people. That’s like sayingacorns are the same as oak trees.”

Some right-to-life advocates, though,even lament the fact that many fertil-ized eggs die off naturally before pro-ducing viable pregnancies. “There’s lotsof suffering and death in the world, butthat’s one of the great evidences of howout-of-kilter things are,” says Kilner, whoalso believes that it’s unethical for peo-ple to discard “extra” embryos created

for in vitro fertilization purposes. Thosepeople should instead arrange for “em-bryo adoptions,” Kilner says.

Caplan, meanwhile, also rejects the“slippery slope” argument — that ther-apeutic cloning would inevitably leadto reproductive cloning.

“That’s like arguing you have to banall uses of matches because there arearsonists,” he says. “You can certainlydraw a line and say you can’t use cloningto make people, and anybody whomakes an embryo into a human beingis going to be penalized.”

BACKGROUNDScientific Milestones

G erman embryologist Hans Spemannarticulated the principles of mod-

ern cloning science in 1938. He won-dered if animals could be replicatedby transferring the genetic material ofdifferentiated (somatic) body cells —

CLONING DEBATE


Scientists have cloned or are trying to clone livestock, pets,endangered species and even genetically engineered an-imals that could be harvested for organs or specific sub-

stances they produce. But the research has produced a pletho-ra of ethical controversies.

Livestock producers say cloning would allow the unlimitedreplication of animals with desired characteristics, such as abun-dant muscle mass (meat), less fat or disease-resistance. “Cloningproduces healthier animals [that] yield more nutritious food prod-ucts,” says Barbara Glenn, director of animal biotechnology at theBiotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), in Washington, D.C.

Only a fraction of U.S. livestock has been produced throughcloning so far, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has asked livestock producers to voluntarily withholdsuch products from the marketplace while the agency studiesthe matter. But many observers expect the agency to approvethe sale of food products from cloned animals by the end ofthe year. The agency telegraphed its intentions last fall, whenit published a draft report concluding that food products de-rived from animal clones and their offspring “are likely to beas safe to eat as food from their non-clone counterparts.” 1

While critics generally do not argue that food from cloned an-imals is unsafe to eat, they do argue that cloning reduces the bi-ological diversity of a species, leaving it vulnerable to unanticipat-ed disorders and diseases. Indeed, they say, this is already happeningwith conventional “selective” breeding practices and the creation ofgenetically engineered, or “transgenic,” animals. Such animals carrygenes from other animals, bacterium or plants inserted into theirgenetic codes to create entirely new species with desired traits.

“Already animals are suffering from maladies at a rate un-heard of before we applied biotechnology to the barnyard,” saysMichael Appleby, vice president for farm animals and sustain-able agriculture at the Humane Society of the United States. “Asingle pathogen could wipe out countless numbers of genetical-ly identical animals, putting . . . the world’s food supply at risk.”

Appleby and other critics also argue that livestock cloning

harms the animals themselves, because a large percentage ofanimal clones die before or shortly after birth, and those thatsurvive often suffer from serious health problems.

Cloning transgenic animals with the desired medicinal traits isalso controversial. Researchers have developed transgenic goats,for example, that produce substances in their milk that can dis-solve blood clots in heart attack and stroke victims. Scientists havealso created transgenic pigs that could someday be used as organdonors for humans — a procedure known as xenotransplantation.The pigs are genetically modified at the embryonic stage so thattheir organs will not be rejected by the human immune system.

Once researchers develop the first version of an animal withthe desired genetic prototype — an extremely difficult process —they can replicate it indefinitely through cloning. “Cloning couldtheoretically provide a limitless supply of cells and organs for xeno-transplantation,” says Michael Lanza, medical director at AdvancedCell Technology, a biotechnology company in Worcester, Mass.

But critics decry such practices on both scientific and ethi-cal grounds. Some argue that xenotransplantation could trans-mit animal viruses to transplant recipients, who could in turninfect others. They note that in 1918 a viral strain of influen-za (flu) was transferred from pigs to people and swept theglobe, killing an estimated 20-to-40 million people. Human im-munodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus responsible for the AIDSpandemic, most likely originated in chimpanzees.

Others question the ethics of treating animals as organ fac-tories. “We don’t have the right to use pigs or any other ani-mals as spare parts for people,” says Peter Wood, a researchassociate at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)in Washington, D.C. “Animals are independent entities withtheir own interests, not a means to an end for humans. Wehave no right to create and then dismember animals at will.”

Cloning may not bring back extinct species, like the dinosaursin Michael Crichton’s novel Jurassic Park, but it is keeping someendangered species from disappearing altogether. Earlier this year,Chinese scientists cloned a rare Siberian ibex, and they have long

Animal Cloning Spurs Controversy, Too


skin cells, for example — to egg cellswhose own nuclei had been re-moved. The procedure Spemann en-visioned was essentially identical tosomatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT),the process used today in both ther-apeutic and — purportedly — re-productive cloning. Spemann didn’tknow how to perform the procedure,but he speculated it would be “some-what fantastical” in nature. 27

In 1952, American embryologistsRobert Briggs and Thomas J. King madeprogress towards Spemann’s “fantastical”

vision by transferring genetic materialtaken from embryonic cells of leopardfrogs to denucleated leopard frog eggs.Many of the eggs developed into tad-poles, and some grew into juvenile frogs.Other scientists repeated the experimentwith other species of frogs.

But these experiments were not thetype that Spemann envisioned, becausethey involved transferring genetic ma-terial from embryonic cells, not somaticcells, which are mature or adult cells.Cloning with embryonic cells is rela-tively easy, because the genes in the

transplanted nuclei are all functioningand thus can be used as genetic blue-prints to create new, duplicate animals.With adult cells, by contrast, many genesare genetically “turned off,” making theblueprint incomplete.

Nevertheless, scientists employed theembryonic cell-transfer technique to repli-cate animals. In 1984, Steen Willadsenof Denmark cloned a sheep using em-bryonic cells. Other researchers subse-quently cloned cattle, pigs, goats andrats using the same approach. An earlyexception to the embryonic-only pro-

been trying to clone the en-dangered giant panda. In Aus-tralia, efforts are under way toclone the endangered northernhairy nosed wombat.

Three years ago, U.S. scien-tists cloned an oxlike gaur, arare Asian species of wild cat-tle. And last April, Lanza’s com-pany cloned two bantegs, wildcowlike creatures native toSoutheast Asia. The cloneswere derived from the cells ofa male banteng that died at theSan Diego Zoo in 1980 with-out producing offspring. Tissuesamples taken from the animalwere kept frozen for 23 years.

In Great Britain, a much moreambitious project — known asthe “Frozen Ark” initiative —aims to freeze tissue samplesof thousands of endangered an-imals to ensure their long-termsurvival. This summer, the firsttissue samples — from anArabian oryx, a spotted seahorse and a British field cricket — were frozen. In the future,scientists could thaw out the samples and attempt to clone newanimals. 2

Critics complain that cloning does not address the real reasonanimals become endangered: the destruction of their habitats.“Cloning endangered species gives a false sense that we’re sav-ing species, when it would be better to . . . preserve species inthe wild,” said Susan Lieberman, director of the species-preservationprogram at the World Wildlife Fund. 3

Meanwhile, grief-stricken petowners can now clone their de-parted animals. Three U.S. com-panies now clone pets: PerPET-uate, Lazaron and GeneticSavings & Clone (GSC). Thecompanies may have light-hearted names, but they prac-tice serious science. Their pricesare serious, too: GSC charges$50,000 to clone a cat. Nextyear the company plans to startcloning dogs. And the compa-ny offers a “gene banking” ser-vice — costing from $295-$1,395— that allows people to keeptheir pets’ genetic materialfrozen.

“It’s a multibillion-dollarbusiness waiting to happen,” LouHawthorne, the company’sfounder and CEO, said. 4

“I’m very worried that peo-ple are putting a piece of Fluffyin the fridge with the hope thatcloning will restore it,” says ArthurCaplan, director of the Center for

Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “Cloning is an echo;it is not a copy. These companies border on deceiving people.”

1 The letter is available on the FDA’s Web site at www.fda.gov/bbs/top-ics/NEWS/2003/NEW00968.html2 More information about the Frozen Ark initiative is available on the British Nat-ural History Museum’s Web site at www.nhm.ac.uk/services/press/items/frozenark.htm3 Quoted in Tim Johnson, “China Announces Cloning of Endangered Siber-ian Ibex,” The San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 30, 2004.4 Television interview, “CBS Evening News,” Sept. 8, 2004.

In a scientific breakthrough, the first cloned mule,Idaho Gem, is born in May 2003.

AFP

photo

/Phil S

hofiel

d


cedure occurred in 1962, when OxfordUniversity zoologist John Gurdon trans-ferred genetic material from adult tad-pole intestinal cells into denucleatedfrog eggs. The result was embryos thatdeveloped into cloned tadpoles.

Fear and Loathing

T hese experiments sparked debateover whether scientists could —

and should — clone humans. Someexperts believed cloning could improvethe human race. This belief, knownas eugenics, originated in ancientGreece, where the philosopher Platospoke of selectively breeding “superi-or” people and eliminating the “fee-ble” in order to improve the qualityof the republic’s population. 28

The eugenics movement took root inthe United States in the early 20th cen-tury. Many white Americans embracedthe concept as a way to keep their racefrom being genetically “degraded” by non-Northern European immigrants who wereflooding into the country at the time.

Eugenics was used to justify the1924 Immigration and Restriction Act,which set strict immigration quotasbased on race and ethnicity. Then-President Calvin Coolidge emphasizedthe eugenic underpinnings of the newlaw: “America must be kept American.Biological laws show that Nordics de-teriorate when mixed with other races.”

About that time, several stateslaunched forced-sterilization programsto prevent “defective people” from breed-ing. By the early 1930s, 27 states hadsterilization laws, and tens of thousandsof Americans had been sterilized. TheU.S. Supreme Court upheld the lawson the basis of eugenics. In a famous1927 case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmesapplauded the forced sterilization of amentally retarded plaintiff, writing: “Threegenerations of imbeciles is enough.”

But such ideas horrified society in theaftermath of World War II and the Nazis’attempt to create an Aryan master race

by sterilizing and ultimately murderingsome 12 million Jews, Slavs, Gypsies andother “undesirable” members of society.By the 1950s, most state forced-steriliza-tion programs had been dismantled.

But the eugenics rationale forcloning didn’t disappear entirely. Ina controversial 1996 article, NobelPrize-winning biologist Joshua Leder-berg outlined how cloning might beused to improve the human race. “Ifa superior individual is identified, whynot copy it directly, rather than suf-fer all the risks of recombinationaldisruption, including those of sex?”Lederberg asked. “The same solaceis accorded the carrier of genetic dis-ease: Why not be sure of an exactcopy of yourself rather than risk ahomozygous segregant” — a babyborn with two copies of the samemutant gene. Such babies would like-ly suffer from a genetic disease. 29

Ethicist Joseph Fletcher had madesimilar points in his 1974 book TheEthics of Genetic Control: Ending Re-productive Roulette. He argued thathuman cloning would provide a wayaround genetic diseases and infertility,and would allow people to bear chil-dren that resembled them or membersof their families.

But theologian and ethicist PaulRamsey excoriated the prospect ofhuman cloning in his 1970 book Fab-ricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Con-trol. He argued that human cloningwould violate the ethical responsibili-ties of both science and parenthoodbecause it would involve experimentson nascent children, it would transformparenthood into a manufacturing process,and it would deny children their indi-viduality. Human cloning, Ramsey wrote,would result in a “vast technologicalalienation of man” and the “abolitionof man’s embodied personhood.”

British author Aldous Huxley hadpainted a similarly chilling picture inhis 1931 novel Brave New World, wherebabies are produced in identical batch-es through a government-run cloning

program, the family is obsolete andhuman beings are merely well-satis-fied animals. To this day, cloning op-ponents invoke Huxley’s horrors whendiscussing the procedure.

Hello Dolly!

I n the meantime, scientists contin-ued trying to clone animals using

adult cells. The goal, they said, wasto replicate animals with desired traitssuch as cows with more meat, less fatand a greater resistance to disease.Cloning, in theory, would allow ranch-ers to breed unlimited numbers of “ar-chetype” cows, pigs or other animals.

In 1994, a team of U.S. researchersfound a way to “turn off” and then“turn on” again the genes of embry-onic cells by putting them into a chem-ically induced state of quiescence, orhibernation. In January 1996, scientistsat the Roslin Institute in Scotland adapt-ed the technique in a bid to clone asheep from an adult sheep cell.

Led by Englishman Ian Wilmut, theteam transplanted adult sheep nucleiinto 277 denucleated eggs. After sub-jecting them to chemicals and weakelectric shocks, 29 embryos were“tricked” into thinking they had beenfertilized and were then implanted intosurrogate mother sheep.

On July 5, 1996, one of the ewesgave birth, marking the first mammalever cloned from an adult cell. Thecloned sheep was named Dolly, afterthe popular country-western singer,Dolly Parton. 30

When Wilmut announced Dolly’sbirth six months later, on Feb. 22,1997, speculation ran wild that thetechnology that produced Dolly couldlead to human cloning. In the UnitedStates, Congress held hearings on thesubject, and in early 1998 the Senateconsidered legislation, proposed by atrio of Republican lawmakers, to per-manently ban all human cloning.

CLONING DEBATE


Nearly all senators denounced humancloning, but many argued that the pro-posed ban would undermine potential-ly valuable scientific research. Democ-ratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy ofMassachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowaled the effort to kill the bill, which wasalso opposed by patient-advocacy groups,scientific and medical organizations andthe biotechnology industry.

“Congress can and should act to bancloning of human beings during thissession,” Kennedy said in February 1998.“But it should not act in haste, and itshould not pass legislation that goesfar beyond what the American peoplewant or what the scientific and med-ical community understands is neces-sary or appropriate.” 31

Although Harkin and Kennedy in-troduced their own version of the bill,banning reproductive cloning but al-lowing therapeutic cloning, the mea-sure died, and Congress remains stale-mated on the issue.

The stakes of the cloning debatechanged again just nine months later, inNovember 1998, when researchers at theUniversity of Wisconsin and Johns Hop-kins University announced that they hadisolated human embryonic stem cells,the undifferentiated “master” cells thatcan become any type of tissue in thebody. The discovery sparked enduringscientific and ethical questions.

CURRENTSITUATION

Competing Legislation

I n Washington, policymakers are tak-ing two general approaches to

cloning. Some want to outlaw thepractice entirely, while others want toban reproductive cloning but allow

therapeutic cloning. The House hastwice passed legislation that wouldban all cloning, most recently in Feb-ruary 2003. The legislation, sponsoredby Reps. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., andBart Stupak, D-Mich., would makecloning punishable by up to 10 yearsin prison and a $1 million fine.

The Senate version of the bill issponsored by Sens. Brownback, theKansas Republican, and Landrieu, aDemocrat from Louisiana. “All cloningis reproductive,” Brownback maintains.“So-called ‘therapeutic’ cloning is theprocess by which an embryo is cre-ated for the purpose of subsequentlykilling it for its parts . . . and [that] iscertainly not ‘therapeutic’ for the clonewho has been created and then dis-emboweled for the purported benefitof its adult twin.” 32

President Bush says he will sign theBrownback-Landrieu legislation into lawif it reaches his desk. He cites threemain reasons for his support. LikeBrownback and others in the anti-cloning camp, Bush views the promisedmedical benefits of therapeutic cloning— Bush calls it “research” cloning —as “highly speculative.” He also arguesthat anything other than a total banwould be “virtually impossible to en-force.” Cloned human embryos creat-ed for research, he says, would in-evitably find their way into the handsof rogue scientists who would use themfor reproductive purposes.

But the president’s main concern isthat all cloning is unethical. “Researchcloning would contradict the most fun-damental principle of medical ethics: thatno human life should be exploited orextinguished for the benefit of another,”Bush said. “Yet a law permitting researchcloning, while forbidding the birth of acloned child, would require the destructionof nascent human life.”

But Bush probably won’t get a chanceto sign the Brownback-Landrieu bill.Several influential senators — includ-ing some Republicans — back a com-peting bill that would prohibit only re-

productive cloning. Much to the cha-grin of the ban-all-cloning camp, Sen.Orrin G. Hatch — the staunchly con-servative, anti-abortion Utah Republi-can — is sponsoring the bill that wouldpermit therapeutic cloning to continue.

“In our attempt to ban human re-productive cloning, we should not closethe door on a form of scientific research(therapeutic cloning) that has the po-tential of curing millions of debilitatingand life-threatening diseases,” Hatchsaid in introducing the bill in 2003. “Asa right-to-life senator, I believe that acritical part of a pro-life, pro-family phi-losophy is helping the living.”

Global Ban?

S tymied by the Senate, Bush hasbeen pushing the United Nations

to enact an international treaty ban-ning all forms of human cloningworldwide.

Last fall, the United States was thedriving force behind a draft U.N. treaty,introduced by Costa Rica, to ban thecreation of cloned human embryos“for any purpose whatsoever” — in-cluding therapeutic uses. The proposaldescribed human cloning as “moral-ly repugnant, unethical and . . . agrave violation of fundamental humanrights.” 33 It was tabled last Novem-ber without an up-or-down vote, andwas scheduled to be reconsidered onOct. 21. The United States will onceagain vigorously lobby for it. But ahost of countries, led by the UnitedKingdom, oppose the U.S. approachfor the same reason Bush’s critics doat home: They do not want to bantherapeutic cloning.

The United Kingdom, Singapore, SouthKorea, Japan and China have all bannedreproductive cloning but allow thera-peutic cloning. The five countries —along with other countries with thrivingbiotechnology industries — support aBelgium-authored U.N. proposal that


CLONING DEBATE

would ban reproduc-tive cloning but per-mit therapeutic cloning.

“It would be inde-fensible to stop thisresearch and deny mil-lions of people — andtheir families — theopportunity to savetheir lives,” AdamThomson, a Britishrepresentative to theU.N., told the Gener-al Assembly in De-cember. 34

Genetics Policy In-stitute, a think tank inCoral Gables, Fla., thatsupports therapeuticcloning, lobbied for theBelgium proposal lastyear. Bernard Siegel,the institute’s executivedirector, says the U.S.delegation worked vig-orously behind thescenes to dissuadeother countries frombacking it. “It was hard-ball politics,” he says.

But Siegel andothers familiar withthe issue say politicsis behind the Bush ad-ministration’s actions.Even if the U.N.adopts a comprehensive cloning treaty,they note, it would not be binding onthe United States without Senate rati-fication — a highly unlikely prospect.The same goes for other countries:Thompson stated flatly last year thatthe U.K. would “not apply” such a banto its national law.

Nevertheless, a U.N. treaty “wouldbe a tremendous propaganda victoryfor the foes of therapeutic cloning,”Siegel says. “Bush could then say thatthe world’s greatest international bodyhad condemned it as morally indefen-sible, and that they [the Senate] had tofollow suit.”

Stem-Cell Showdown

B ush is also facing pressure to liftthe restrictions that he placed

on federal spending for embryonicstem-cell research in August 2001.Bush said at the time that there were“more than 60” embryonic stem-celllines existing in laboratories aroundthe world. Reasoning that the em-bryos that had given rise to them hadalready been destroyed, Bush madefederal funds available to researcherswho wanted to study them. But he

prohib i ted federa lspending on researchusing other, newerlines.

Critics have longmaintained that Bushgreatly overestimatedthe number of useablelines that existed at thetime of his announce-ment. Indeed, the Na-tional Institutes ofHealth, a division ofthe U.S. Department ofHealth and HumanServices, estimated inMarch that only 19 lineswere available for fed-eral funding, far fewerthan Bush originally in-dicated. Consequently,the federal governmentdoled out only $24.8million for embryonicstem-cell research in2003.

In June, more than140 scientific societies,patient organizationsand other groups senta letter to Bush urginghim to expand his pol-icy and allow federalfunds to be spent onadditional embryonicstem-cell lines (more

than 100 have been created with pri-vate funds and in other countries sinceBush announced his policy).

“[F]or the full potential of embry-onic stem-cell research to be reached,the number of stem-cell lines readilyavailable to scientists must increase,”the letter stated. “For those of us witha personal stake in the possibilities ofembryonic stem-cell research, this re-ally is a race against time. In the pastthree years, more than 4 millionAmericans have died from diseasesthat embryonic stem cells have thepotential to treat.” 35

Continued on p. 894

Actor Michael J. Fox presents an award to former first lady Nancy Reaganat a May 2004 fund-raising event in Beverly Hills, Calif., for stem-celland juvenile diabetes research. Fox has Parkinson’s disease; the late

President Ronald Reagan had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, which somescientists say might be cured with the help of stem-cell research.

Get

ty I

mag

es/V

ince

Bucc

i

no


At Issue:Should Congress ban all forms of human cloning?Yes

yesDAVID PRENTICESENIOR FELLOW FOR LIFE SCIENCES, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

WRITTEN FOR THE CQ RESEARCHER, OCTOBER 2004

h uman cloning starts with construction of an embryo.In a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer(SCNT), the chromosomes of an egg cell are re-

placed with the nucleus of a somatic (body) cell. If the result-ing embryo is then inserted into a womb in hopes of a livebirth, it is called “reproductive cloning.” If the embryo is de-stroyed to harvest its stem cells for experiments, it is called“therapeutic cloning.” But these are not two separate types ofcloning: The same embryo — produced by the same technique— is the starting point for both uses.

While most are opposed to reproductive cloning, some favortherapeutic cloning. The premise is that embryonic stem cellsfrom a cloned embryo will produce matched transplant tissue forthe patient whose cells were cloned. Yet, even proponents oftherapeutic cloning have disputed this supposed transplant match,and when tested in mice, the cells were indeed rejected. Embry-onic stem-cell researchers have noted that therapeutic cloning isunlikely to be of clinical significance. On the other hand, re-search using adult stem cells — which does not destroy any em-bryos — continues to show success at treating human patients.

However, any use of human cloning poses a health risk towomen. A tremendous number of eggs are required for cre-ation of just one cloned embryo, with minimal estimates of50-100 (the South Koreans required 242 eggs to produce oneembryonic stem-cell line.) A simple calculation shows that totreat just one disease group in the U.S. — the 17 million dia-betes patients — would require a minimum of 850 million-1.7billion human eggs, requiring the “harvest” of eggs fromwomen on a global basis.

Allowing therapeutic cloning will likely lead to reproductivecloning. The same embryo is used for both procedures, andpractice with the technique to produce embryos for researchwould refine the technique for producing embryos for implan-tation in a womb, as noted by the American Society for Re-productive Medicine Ethics Committee in November 2000. Thelead author of the Korean study admitted at a news confer-ence that the technique developed in his lab “cannot be sepa-rated from reproductive cloning.”

Creating human embryos for research raises grave ethicalconcerns. It instrumentalizes human life and creates a caste ofhumans only to serve the needs of others. There is no evi-dence that cloning is necessary or useful for medical science,it poses a risk to women’s health and crosses an ethical linein creation of human beings.No

DANIEL PERRYPRESIDENT, COALITION FOR THE ADVANCEMENTOF MEDICAL RESEARCH

WRITTEN FOR THE CQ RESEARCHER, OCTOBER 2004

b anning all forms of cloning would slam the door onhope for up to 100 million Americans by outlawingvital research on some of the most debilitating dis-

eases known to humankind.There are very different kinds of “cloning,” which simply

means making copies of a single molecule, cell, virus or bac-terium. Reproductive cloning — creating babies that are genet-ically identical to a parent — is unsafe and morally repug-nant. I agree with the vast majority of Americans and virtuallyall responsible scientists that it should be banned.

Therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer tech-nology (SCNT), as scientists call it) is fundamentally different.SCNT involves removing the nucleus of an egg cell, replacingit with the material from the nucleus of a skin, heart, nerveor any other non-germ cell, then stimulating this cell to begindividing. It is important to remember that this tiny batch ofcells — smaller than the period at the end of this sentence —never leaves the lab, nor is it transplanted into a womb. Nosperm is used. Instead, researchers store the unfertilized eggcells in a lab, where they are used to produce stem cells.

Leading medical researchers say these cells may be able totreat or even cure several debilitating diseases. They also saythe clear differences between reproductive and therapeuticcloning would make it easy to devise a ban that prevents theformer while allowing the latter.

Therapeutic cloning could produce patient-specific embry-onic stem cells that could be used to cure certain conditionswithout being rejected by the patient’s immune system. Itmight also provide scientists with cells or tissues carrying cer-tain diseases, which researchers could analyze for insights intowhat causes certain diseases and why they develop in certainways. This type of cloning could also bring new hope topeople suffering from cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, spinal cordinjury and many other now-incurable conditions.

This is why pro-life Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, formerPresidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and Nancy Reagansupport therapeutic cloning. Two years ago, 40 U.S. Nobellaureates, including pioneers in research on cancer andother life-threatening diseases, released a joint statementstrongly supporting therapeutic cloning. They warned thatlegislation then before Congress to ban this vital research,“would have a chilling effect on all scientific research inthe United States.”

Those words are even more true today.


Lawmakers, too, are houndingBush to expand the policy. And thepressure is coming not just from De-mocrats, but conservative, right-to-lifeRepublicans as well. Earlier this year,206 House members and 58 senatorssigned letters calling on Bush to ex-pand federal funding for embryonicstem-cell research. Three-dozen Re-publicans signed the House letter,and 14 Republicans signed the Sen-ate letter.

Bush is even getting heat from Mrs.Reagan, a GOP luminary. Reagan diedthis summer after a long struggle withAlzheimer’s disease, a condition thatsome scientists say could be addressedwith embryonic stem cell and thera-peutic cloning therapies.

In May, a month before her hus-band died, Mrs. Reagan describedhow the devastating brain-wastingdisease had “taken him to a distantplace where I can no longer reachhim.” She expressed hope that stem-cell research and therapeutic cloningmight provide new treatments formany diseases.

“I just don’t see how we can turnour backs on this,” she said at a fund-raiser for the Juvenile Diabetes Re-search Foundation. “We have lost somuch time already, and I just reallycan’t bear to lose any more.”

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts,the Democratic Party’s presidentialcandidate, says he’d quadruple fed-eral funding for embryonic stem-cellresearch to at least $100 million an-nually if elected in November. Kerrysays Bush’s position on the issueamounts to “sacrificing science forideology.”

“We’re going to listen to our scien-tists and stand up for science,” Kerrysaid at a campaign event this summer.“We’re going to say ‘yes’ to knowledge,‘yes’ to discovery and ‘yes’ to a newera of hope for all Americans.”

A solid majority of Americans sup-port embryonic stem-cell research. 36

Action in the States

N ine states ban reproductivecloning: Arkansas, California,

Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, NorthDakota, Rhode Island, South Dakotaand Virginia. Five of these — Arkansas,Iowa, Michigan and the Dakotas —criminalize therapeutic cloning as well.

State laws on embryonic stem-cell re-search vary widely. A few states —Louisiana, Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas,Iowa and the Dakotas — specifically pro-hibit research on embryos created in cer-tain ways, such as therapeutic cloning.Louisiana is the only state that specifi-cally prohibits the research on the largestsource of embryos — those discardedby clients of in vitro fertilization clinics.

The majority of the states place norestrictions on embryonic stem-cell re-search. But some states are going muchfurther, in a clear rebuke of the re-strictions imposed by the Bush WhiteHouse, by committing public moniesfor the research.

In May, Gov. James E. McGreevey, D-N.J., signed legislation establishing the na-tion’s first state-funded stem-cell researchinstitute, which is to be built in down-town New Brunswick and run jointly byRutgers University and the University ofMedicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.The bill allocates $6.5 million in statefunds for equipment and to help recruittop researchers to the facility. McGreeveyexpects that the seed money will attractmore than $20 million in public and pri-vate investments in the first five years.He says the facility could find cures forpeople suffering from conditions such asheart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, dia-betes, cancer and spinal cord injuries.

“People are suffering today, and whatwe offer them is hope,” McGreeveysaid in dedicating the facility last spring.“We have the opportunity to changelives throughout the world. We haveno higher calling.”

But no state is doing more to pro-mote stem-cell research — and thera-

peutic cloning — than California. In No-vember, Californians will vote on a bal-lot proposal that would authorize the stateto spend $3 billion on the two researchareas over the next decade. That aver-ages out to $300 million per year — 12times what the federal government spenton embryonic stem-cell research in 2003.The funds would be spent for researchconducted at the state’s medical schoolsand other nonprofit scientific institutions.

“We have more than 50 percent ofthe biotech capacity in the United Statesand more than most other countries,”said Robert Klein, a real estate devel-oper in Palo Alto, Calif., who is a lead-ing backer of the proposal. “We canrun a substitute national program.” 37

Joseph Lacob, an investment bankerin Menlo Park, Calif., who voted forBush in 2000, agrees. Lacob says he’sangry with Bush for limiting federalfunding on the research, which he con-siders to be medically promising.

“This country is falling behind be-cause of an administration directive thatI think is totally in error,” Lacob said.“I felt something had to be done tosend a message to the Bush adminis-tration and the world that the UnitedStates and particularly California is goingto take a leadership role.” 38

OUTLOOKHuman Cloning?

T he future of U.S. cloning and em-bryonic stem-cell research hinges

in part on who wins the presidentialelection in November. Bush, despitethe criticism he’s receiving over em-bryonic stem-cell research, has not in-dicated he would change positions onthe issue if he wins; Kerry has promisedto quadruple federal funding for theresearch if elected. Bush supporters

CLONING DEBATE



say Kerry’s policy would cause untoldnumbers of nascent human beings tobe slaughtered; Kerry supporters sayBush is letting his personal religiousbeliefs block research that could helpmillions of those already living.

Bush and Kerry also differ oncloning policy. Bush wants to crimi-nalize all forms of cloning. Kerry wantsto ban only reproductive cloning.But, realistically, neither is likely toprevail unless there’s a major reshuf-fling of Congress. Thus, Washington’scloning stalemate will undoubtedlycontinue for the foreseeable future —leaving both types of cloning legalexcept where prohibited by state law.

Meanwhile, will human cloning be-come a verifiable reality? Opinions vary.

“Never,” says the University of Penn-sylvania’s Caplan. “If you look at theanimal data, the outcomes are so poorthat I’m suspicious that cloning maynot work in people.”

Kilner, of the Center for Bioethicsand Human Dignity, isn’t so sure. “Iwouldn’t be surprised if it were an-nounced tomorrow that a clone hadbeen born,” he says. “It’s conceivableto me that whatever obstacles thereare can be bypassed or overcome.”

Some experts — even those op-posed to reproductive cloning — saythe therapeutic-cloning experiment car-ried out by South Korean researchersearlier this year went a long way inovercoming those obstacles.

“It would be naive to say we aren’ta step closer to irresponsible peopleattempting reproductive cloning,” saysSchatten, of the University of Pitts-burgh School of Medicine.

Only a “worldwide, enforceable ban”on any attempts at human reproduc-tive cloning will prevent someonefrom cloning humans, he says.

Zavos, the controversial fertility spe-cialist, says it’s too late for that. He vowsto push ahead with his effort to clonea human being. “Ban it?” he asks wryly,“That time has passed a long time ago.The genie is out of the bottle.” 39

Notes

1 Quoted in Joanne Laucius, “‘It Happened,’Doctor Says of Three Cloned Babies,” TheOttawa Citizen [Canada], May 6, 2004, p. A9.2 Quoted in John von Radowitz, “Cloned Em-bryo Pioneers Say Duplicating of HumansMust be Outlawed,” The Press AssociationLimited, Feb. 12, 2004.3 Quoted in Steve Mitchell, “Human Embry-onic Stem Cells Cloned,” United Press Inter-national, Feb. 12, 2004.4 Reeve testified before the Senate Health,Education, Labor and Pensions Committee onMarch 5, 2002.5 For more information on Landrieu’s posi-tions on stem cell and embryo research, seeBruce Alpert, “Senators Urge More Stem CellResearch,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans),June 9, 2004, p. A6.6 A transcript of Bush’s remarks is availableon the White House Web site at www.white-house.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html.7 Quoted in Michael D. Lemonick, “CloningGets Closer,” Time, Feb. 23, 2004, p. 48.8 Laurie Goodstein and Denise Grady, “Spliton Clones of Embryos: Research vs. Re-production,” The New York Times, Feb. 13,2004, p. A1.9 See J. R. Hill, et al., “Clinical and PathologicFeatures of Cloned Transgenic Calves andFetuses,” Theriogenology, Vol. 8, pp. 1451-1465, 1999.10 See, for example, CNN/USA Today/GallupPoll, Jan. 3-5, 2003, of 1,000 adults nation-wide.11 For background, see David Masci, “De-signer Humans,” The CQ Researcher, May 18,2001, pp. 425-448.12 www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-

025.htm.13 Kass testified before the Senate JudiciaryCommittee on March 19, 2003.14 Quoted in Panos Zavos, “Should HumanBeings be Cloned?” The New York Times Up-front, April 30, 2001, p. 26.15 Zavos testified before the House Gov-ernment Reform Subcommittee on CriminalJustice, Drug Policy and Human Resourceson May 15, 2002.16 Quoted in Michele Grygotis, “New StudiesBolster Promise of Both Adult and Em-bryonic Stem Cells,” Transplant News, June30, 2002.17 Quoted in Jonathan Bor, “Stem cells: ALong Road Ahead,” The Baltimore Sun,March 8, 2004, p. A12.18 The letter was sent to every member ofthe House and Senate on July 30, 2004.19 See “Fact Sheet: Juvenile Diabetes PatientsNeed Real Hope, Not Hype, Embryonic StemCells, Cloning, Are Not Path To Cures,” March2, 2004, www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/fact-sheet-04-03-02.htm#_ftn2.20 Quoted in Rick Weiss, “Stem Cells An Un-likely Therapy for Alzheimer’s,” The Wash-ington Post, June 10, 2004, p. A3.21 William M. Rideout III and Rudolf Jaenisch,et al., “Correction of a Genetic Defect byNuclear Transplantation and Combined Celland Gene Therapy,” Cell, Vol. 109, No. 1,p. 17.22 For more information on adult stem cells,see the National Institutes of Health, onlineat http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/ba-sics4.asp. See also “Do No Harm,” The Coali-tion of Americans for Research Ethics, on-line at www.stemcellresearch.org. (Thecoalition is an advocacy group that oppos-es embryo research for ethical reasons.)23 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Sub-committee on Science, Technology and Space,Jan. 29, 2003.

About the AuthorBrian Hansen, a freelance writer in Boulder, Colo., spe-cializes in educational and environmental issues. He pre-viously was a staff writer for The CQ Researcher and a re-porter for the Colorado Daily in Boulder and EnvironmentNews Service in Washington. His awards include the ScrippsHoward Foundation award for public service reporting andthe Education Writers Association award for investigativereporting. He holds a B.A. in political science and an M.A.in education from the University of Colorado.


CLONING DEBATE

24 Quoted in Steve Connor, “Cloners HatchHeadless Embryos of Mice — and Men?” TheAustralian, Dec. 22, 1997, p. 7.25 Charles Krauthammer, “Of Headless Mice. . . And Men; The Ultimate Cloning Horror:Human Organ Farms,” Time, Feb. 19, 1998,p. 76.26 Quoted in Gina Kolata, “Cloning CreatesHuman Embryos,” The New York Times, Feb.12, 2004, p. A1.27 See Hans Spemann, Embryonic Develop-ment and Induction (1938). As quoted in G.Kolata, Clone: The Road to Dolly and the PathAhead (1998), p. 61.28 Unless otherwise noted, this materialcomes from Masci, op. cit.29 Quoted in Joshua Lederberg, “Experi-mental Genetics and Human Evolution,” TheAmerican Naturalist, September-October 1966,p. 527.30 See Michael Specter and Gina Kolata, “ANew Creation: The Path to Cloning — A Spe-cial Report.; After Decades of Missteps, HowCloning Succeeded,” The New York Times,March 3, 1997, p. A1.31 Congressional Record, Feb. 9, 1998, pp.S513-514.32 Brownback originally made this commenton Jan. 29, 2003, during a Senate subcom-mittee hearing. He has subsequently repeat-ed it in a number of different venues.33 Quoted in Asif Ismail, “Dim Chance forGlobal Cloning Ban,” The Center for PublicIntegrity, June 4, 2004. Online at www.pub-licintegrity.org/genetics/report.aspx?aid=276&sid=200.34 Remarks before the U.N. General Assem-bly, Dec. 9, 2003.35 The letter is available on the Coalition for theAdvancement of Medical Research’s Web site atwww.camradvocacy.org/fastaction/Change6-17-20042.pdf.36 Quoted in “Scientists, Patients Fight U.N.Stem-Cell Study Ban,” CNN.com, Oct. 14,2004.37 Quoted in John M. Broder and AndrewPollack, “Californians to Vote on Spending$3 Billion on Stem Cell Research,” The NewYork Times, Sept. 20, 2004, p. A1.38 Ibid.39 Quoted in Nell Boyce, “The Clone is Outof the Bottle,” U.S. News & World Report, Feb.23, 2004, p. 40.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONCenter for Bioethics and Human Dignity, 2065 Half Day Road, Bannockburn,IL 60015; (847) 317-8180; www.cbhd.org. Christian-oriented think tank that ap-proaches cloning, embryonic stem-cell research and other bioethics issues fromthe perspective of “biblical values.”

The Reprogen Organization, 17 Gr. Xenopoulou St., Suite 2A, P.O. Box 53117,3300 Limassol, Cyprus; 357-5-866300; www.reprogen.org. Company run by Americanembryologist Panayiotis Zavos that calls itself the “international center for the studyof reproductive DNA cloning technology.”

Christian Medical and Dental Association, P.O. Box 7500, Bristol, TN 37621;(423) 844-1000; www.cmdahome.org. Membership organization representing morethan 17,000 Christian medical professionals that opposes all forms of cloning andembryonic stem-cell research.

Clonaid, www.clonaid.com. Company affiliated with the Raelian religious sectthat calls itself the “world’s first human cloning company.”

Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, 2021 K St., N.W., Suite305, Washington, DC 20006; (202) 833-0355; www.camradvocacy.org. An associationof scientific societies, patient organizations and other institutions that works to pro-mote therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem-cell research.

Do No Harm, The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, 1101 Pennsyl-vania Ave., N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004; (202) 756-4947; www.stem-cellresearch.org. An association of doctors, ethicists and theologians opposed tocloning and embryonic stem-cell research.

Family Research Council, 801 G Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001; (202)393-2100; www.frc.org. Think tank that “promotes the Judeo-Christian worldviewas the basis for a just, free and stable society.” Maintains that the “right to life isthe most fundamental of political rights.” Opposes all forms of cloning and em-bryonic stem-cell research.

Genetics Policy Institute, 4000 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Coral Gables, FL 33146;(305) 777-0268; www.genpol.org. International nonprofit organization dedicated toestablishing a legal framework to advance therapeutic cloning and embryonicstem-cell research.

The Hastings Center, 21 Malcolm Gordon Rd., Garrison NY 10524; (845) 424-4040;www.thehastingscenter.org. Nonpartisan research institute devoted to ethical issues inhealth and medicine, the life sciences and the environment. Its president supportstherapeutic cloning and embryonic stem-cell research.

National Institutes of Health, 1 Center Dr., Building 1, Suite 126, Bethesda, MD20892; (301) 496-2433; www.nih.gov. The federal government’s leading biomedicalresearch organization; funds research on human embryonic stem cells in keepingwith the restrictions imposed by President Bush in August 2001.

President’s Council on Bioethics, 1801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 700,Washington, DC 20006; (202) 296-4669; www.bioethics.gov. Advises the presidenton cloning, embryonic stem-cell research and other bioethics issues; most mem-bers oppose both reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

FOR MORE INFORMATION


Books

Bonnicksen, Andrea L., Crafting a Cloning Policy: FromDolly to Stem Cells, Georgetown University Press, 2002.A Northern Illinois University political science professor ex-

amines the political responses to advances in cloning and em-bryonic stem-cell research as well as proposed federal and statelaws, research funding and other countries’ cloning policies.

Kolata, Gina, Clone: The Road to Dolly and the PathAhead, Morrow and Company, 1998.An acclaimed science journalist documents the story be-

hind Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned from an adultcell; she chronicles the history of cloning and how the Dollybreakthrough could relate to the cloning of humans.

Kunich, John Charles, The Naked Clone: How Cloning BansThreaten Our Personal Rights, Praeger Publishers, 2003.A law professor at Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I.,

argues that banning therapeutic and reproductive cloningwould violate Americans’ rights to personal autonomy, pri-vacy, reproduction and freedom of expression.

Maienschein, Jane, Whose View of Life? Embryos, Cloning,and Stem Cells, Harvard University Press, 2003.The director of the Center for Biology and Society at Ari-

zona State University examines developments in stem-cell re-search, cloning and embryology from both scientific andphilosophical viewpoints.

Silver, Lee, Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering andCloning Will Transform the American Family, Avon, 1998.A biology professor at Princeton University looks at how

cloning and other forms of genetic engineering could beused to reshape the human race.

Articles

Broder, John M., and Andrew Pollack, “Californians toVote on Spending $3 Billion on Stem Cell Research,” TheNew York Times, Sept. 20, 2004, p. A1.Some Californians, frustrated by President Bush’s policy on em-

bryonic stem-cell research, are backing a ballot initiative thatwould pump billions of dollars of state funds into the research.

Goodstein, Laurie, and Denise Grady, “Split on Clonesof Embryos: Research vs. Reproduction,” The New YorkTimes, Feb. 13, 2004, p. 22.This overview chronicles recent scientific developments in

cloning and stem-cell research and outlines the main argu-ments for and against the technologies.

Ismail, Asif M., “Dim Chance for Global Cloning Ban,”The Center for Public Integrity, June 4, 2004 (online atwww.publicintegrity.org/genetics).A journalist describes why there is only a slim chance the

international community will ban all forms of cloning.

Kolata, Gina, “Cloning Creates Human Embryos,” TheNew York Times, Feb. 12, 2004, p. A1.A science writer describes how a team of researchers from

South Korea created human embryos by cloning and har-vested embryonic stem cells from them.

Lemonick, Michael D., “Cloning Gets Closer,” Time, Feb.23, 2004, p. 48.This easy-to-read feature story explores how the South

Korean therapeutic cloning achievement could revolution-ize medical science and/or lead to the cloning of humanbeings.

Weiss, Rick, “Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy forAlzheimer’s,” The Washington Post, June 10, 2004, p. A3.A veteran journalist, citing some of the top Alzheimer’s re-

searchers in the nation, casts doubt on the claim that em-bryonic stem-cell research could lead to a cure for the dev-astating condition.

Reports

“Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical In-quiry,” The President’s Council on Bioethics, July 2002.This comprehensive report on both reproductive and ther-

apeutic cloning concludes that reproductive cloning shouldbe banned outright, and calls for a four-year moratorium ontherapeutic cloning.

“Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human ReproductiveCloning,” National Academy of Sciences, Committee onScience, Engineering and Public Policy, National Acade-mies Press, 2002.Human reproductive cloning should “not now” be prac-

ticed because “it is dangerous and likely to fail,” but the sci-entific and medical aspects should be reviewed again in fiveyears, the national science panel recommends.

“Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine,”National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Bio-logical and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Re-search, National Academies Press, 2002.A federal scientific advisory panel describes the promise of

embryonic and adult stem-cell research, as well as the bar-riers to accomplishing it.

Selected Sources

Bibliography


Animal Cloning

Monaghan, Peter, “Meet Idaho Gem and His Siblings, TripletStars of Science,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Aug.6, 2004, p. 32.Students at the University of Idaho and Utah State Univer-

sity have become experts in the science of cloning, workingwith three identical, cloned horses — the first of their kind.

Pollack, Andrew, “F.D.A. Finds Cloned Animals Safe forFood,” The New York Times, Oct. 31, 2003, p. A20.According to the Food and Drug Administration, milk and

meat from cloned animals are safe to consume, a finding thatcould eventually clear the way for such products to reachsupermarkets and for cloning to be used to breed livestock.

Said, Carolyn, “$10 Million Bengal Kittens Pave Way for PetCloning,” The San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 6, 2004, p. A1.A Sausalito, Calif., firm that wants to clone pets says it has

created two cloned cats and is now ready to start fillingcustomers’ orders.

Politics and Science

Cohen, Eric, “The Party of Cloning: The Democrats Embracethe Gospel of Stem Cells,” The Weekly Standard, Aug. 30, 2004.Democrats are poised to cross an ethical and political

boundary — federal funding for the creation, study and de-struction of cloned human embryos.

Cohen, Eric, “Sen. Kerry’s Stem-Cell Fairy Tales,” LosAngeles Times, Aug. 22, 2004, p. M3.Democrats make the powerful, but false claims that Bush

has banned stem-cell research and that cures for everythingfrom AIDS to Alzheimer’s are just around the corner.

Graham, Judith, “Key Issue: Stem Cell Research,” Chica-go Tribune, July 27, 2004, p. C16.Stem-cell research is a major issue in the November 2004

presidential race between George W. Bush and Sen. JohnKerry, even causing some voters to change parties.

Lawrence, Jill, “Kerry’s Scientific Approach,” USA Today,Oct. 5, 2004, p. 20A.Science is a hot issue in the presidential election, with Sen.

John Kerry arguing that President Bush favors special interestsover science and made the wrong choices on stem-cell research.

Niedowski, Erika, and David Kohn, “Stem Cell DisputePulls Science Into Political Arena,” The Baltimore Sun,Aug. 15, 2004, p. 1A.Scientists say President Bush’s stem-cell research policy has

hindered their work, and Sen. John Kerry says he will liftthe restrictions if he wins in November.

Semple, Kirk, “U.N. to Consider Whether to Ban Some,or All, Forms of Cloning of Human Embryos,” The NewYork Times, Nov. 3, 2003, p. A1.The United Nations will consider two competing resolutions

that propose bans on human cloning and seek to establishinternational legal boundaries in the field of life sciences.

President’s Council on Bioethics

Blackburn, Elizabeth, “A ‘Full Range’ of Bioethical ViewsJust Got Narrower,” The Washington Post, March 7, 2004,p. B2.An ex-member of the bioethics council explains how her

removal from the council represents a narrowing of viewson the embryonic stem-cell research debate.

Brainard, Jeffrey, “A New Kind of Bioethics,” The Chron-icle of Higher Education, May 21, 2004, p. 22.Some academics say the bioethics council is driven by con-

servative ideology, rushing to alarmist conclusions and ig-noring relevant topics like access to medical care.

Hall, Stephen, “U.S. Panel About to Weigh In On Rulesfor Assisted Fertility,” The New York Times, March 30,2004, p. F1.The Council on Bioethics plans to release a report that

recommends regulations that affect the research and prac-tice of in vitro fertilization and embryo research.

Lamb, Gregory, “In Cloning Debate, a Compromise,” TheChristian Science Monitor, April 8, 2004, p. 14.The council offered liberals and conservatives a way out

in their debate over human cloning by recommending a banon reproductive cloning but not cloning research.

Rothstein, Edward, “The Meaning of ‘Human’ In EmbryonicResearch,” The New York Times, March 13, 2004, p. B9.An unusual 628-page publication of the bioethics council tries

to address “the human and moral significance of developmentsin biomedical and behavioral science and technology.”

Stem-Cell Research

“Baby Steps,” The Economist, Jan. 3, 2004.Researchers at the U.S. biotechnology firm Advanced Cell Tech-

nology reportedly have created human embryos healthy enoughto make it through at least the earliest stages of development.

Hall, Stephen, “Specter of Cloning May Prove A Mirage,”The New York Times, Feb. 17, 2004, p. F1.The future of human therapeutic cloning — the laws gov-

erning it, the knowledge gained from it and the ethical costsof doing it — may hinge on the biological and moral sub-tleties of a tiny dot of tissue.

The Next Step:Additional Articles from Current Periodicals


Kolata, Gina, “Stem Cell Science Gets Limelight; Now ItNeeds a Cure,” The New York Times, Aug. 24, 2004, p. F1.The challenge for scientists studying stem cells in the midst

of a fierce political debate, many say, is to be realistic abouthow hard it is to develop treatments.

Munro, Neil, and Mark Kukis, “A Brave New World?” TheNational Journal, May 22, 2004.Critics argue that while they share the goal of developing

new therapies, bioengineering will change and fragment peo-ple’s understanding of nature and humanity.

Pollack, Andrew, “Cloning and Stem Cells: The Research,”The New York Times, Feb. 13, 2004, p. A22.In cloning human embryos and extracting stem cells, sci-

entists have taken a big step, but significant scientific andethical barriers still lie between this feat and actual therapy.

South Korean Breakthrough

Faiola, Anthony, “Dr. Clone: Creating Life or Trying toSave It?” The Washington Post, Feb. 29, 2004, p. A1.Woo Suk Hwang, leader of a South Korean team of sci-

entists who created the world’s first cloned human embryos,views cloning as essential for the chronically ill.

Kolata, Gina, “Cloning Creates Human Embryos,” TheNew York Times, Feb. 12, 2004, p. A1.South Korean scientists report they have created human

embryos through cloning embryonic stem cells, reignitingthe debate over the ethics of human cloning.

Lee, B. J., “Cloning College,” Newsweek, March 1, 2004, p. 48.While well-endowed labs in the United States, Britain and

France are constrained by a political backlash against cloningresearch, South Korea has quietly filled the void.

Lemonick, Michael, “Cloning Gets Closer,” Time, Feb. 23, 2004.Two South Korean scientists announced they created more

than 200 embryos by cloning human cells in an effort tofight disease with the slow-moving technology.

State Cloning Laws

Broder, John, and Andrew Pollack, “Californians to Voteon Spending $3 Billion on Stem Cell Research,” The NewYork Times, Sept. 20, 2004, p. A1.Proposition 71, an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot, would

authorize the state to issue $3 billion in bonds to pay fora range of stem-cell research now severely limited by theBush administration’s policy.

Davidson, Keay, “Stem Cell Initiative Leads by SmallMargin,” The San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15, 2004,p. B1.A close race in the campaign to pass a California initiative

for stem-cell research appears to have become a microcosmof the equally polarized presidential race.

Roosevelt, Margot, “Stem-Cell Rebels,” Time, May 17,2004, p. 49.Given the nature of the stem-cell debate, the Bush admin-

istration is unlikely to make any moves before the election,but several states are filling the vacuum.

Smith, Wesley, “California’s Other Senator; Jon CorzineWants to Help California Lure Biotech Cloning Com-panies Away from New Jersey,” The Daily Standard,Aug. 26, 2004.Jon Corzine, a senator from New Jersey, donated $100,000

to help pass Proposition 71, which would force Californiansto borrow billions for embryonic stem-cell research.

Vregano, Dan, “States Dive into Stem Cell Debates,” USAToday, April 21, 2004, p. 1D.An annual Senate debate has hit the road, moving to 33

state legislatures considering 100 bills that alternately con-demn, condone or fund embryonic stem-cell research.

CITING THE CQ RESEARCHER

Sample formats for citing these reports in a bibliography include the ones listed below. Preferred styles

and formats vary, so please check with your instructor or professor.

MLA STYLE

Jost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” The CQ Researcher 16 Nov. 2001: 945-68.

APA STYLE

Jost, K. (2001, November 16). Rethinking the death penalty. The CQ Researcher, 11, 945-968.

CHICAGO STYLE

Jost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher, November 16, 2001, 945-968.

?Are you writing a paper?

Need backup for a debate?

Want to become an expert on an issue?

For 80 years, researchers have turned to The CQ Researcher for in-depth reporting on issues in the news. Reportson a full range of political and social issues are now available. Following is a selection of recent reports:

ACCESSThe CQ Researcher is available in print and online. For access,visit your library or www.thecqresearcher.com.

STAY CURRENTTo receive notice of upcoming CQ Researcher reports, orlearn more about CQ Researcher products, subscribe to thefree e-mail newsletters, CQ Researcher Alert! and CQ ResearcherNews: www.cqpress.com/newsletters.

PURCHASETo purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or electronicformat (PDF), visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737.A single report is $10. Bulk purchase discounts and elec-tronic rights licensing are also available.

SUBSCRIBEA full-service CQ Researcher print subscription—including44 reports a year, monthly index updates, and a boundvolume—is $625 for academic and public libraries, $605for high school libraries, and $750 for media libraries.Add $25 for domestic postage.

The CQ Researcher Online offers a backfile from 1991 and anumber of tools to simplify research. Available in printand online, The CQ Researcher en español offers 36 reports ayear on political and social issues of concern to Latinosin the U.S. For pricing and a free trial of either product,call 800-834-9020, ext. 1906, or e-mail [email protected].

Upcoming ReportsVoting Rights, 10/29/04

Gun Control, 11/5/04

Sentencing Debates, 11/12/04

Treatment of Veterans, 11/19/04

Tobacco Industry, 12/3/04

Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 12/10/04

In-depth Reports on Issues in the News

Civil LibertiesCivil Liberties Debates, 10/03Gay Marriage, 9/03

Crime/LawStopping Genocide, 8/04Serial Killers, 10/03

EconomyBig-Box Stores, 9/04Exporting Jobs, 2/04Stock Market Troubles, 1/04

EducationSchool Desegregation, 4/04Black Colleges, 12/03Combating Plagiarism, 9/03

Energy/TransportationSUV Debate, 5/03Future of Amtrak, 10/03

EnvironmentSmart Growth, 5/04Air Pollution Conflict, 11/03

Health/SafetyDietary Supplements, 9/04Homeopathy Debate, 12/03Worker Safety, 5/04

International AffairsStopping Genocide, 8/04Aiding Africa, 8/03

Politics/Public PolicyRedistricting Disputes, 3/04Democracy in Arab World, 1/04

Social TrendsFuture of Music Industry, 11/03Latinos’ Future, 10/03

Terrorism/DefenseNorth Korean Crisis, 4/03Homeland Security, 9/03

YouthAthletes and Drugs, 7/04Youth Suicide, 2/04Hazing, 1/04

Understanding Constitutional Issues:

SELECTIONS FROM THE CQ RESEARCHER

June 2004 • 8 1/2 x 11 • Approx. 432 pages • Paperback • ISBN 1-56802-885-7 • $39.95

To Order: Call Toll-Free: 866.4CQ.PRESS (427.7737)Fax: 800.380.3810 • Web: www.cqpress.comE-mail: [email protected]

CQ Press, 1255 22nd Street, NW, Suite 400 • Washington, DC 20037

New!

Understanding Constitu- tional Issues focuses on four key themes — gov- ernmental powers and structure, security, liberty, and equality — to help students develop a deeper understanding of the

relation between current events and

constitutional issues and principles. Integrating eighteen CQ

Researcher reports, Understanding Constitutional Issues makes important connections clear, such as those between civil liberties and security; and privacy and liberty.

Documents

CQResearcher - Wikispacesnvhealthenglish.wikispaces.com/file/view/cloning.debate... · 2011-10-07 · 890 Hello Dolly! In 1996, scientists in Scot-land used adult stem cells to clone